Slashdot Mirror
Why Should Dealers Require OS Licenses?
gandalf_grey asks: "I just got off the phone with my local Dell Rep. She's just informed me that I cannot order my PC's without an OS pre-installed, unless I have a license for my OS. This is despite the "NO OS" option on their website. I was seriously considering sending them the GPL. I ended up just requesting Linux to save myself a minor spaz, but what business is it of Dell if I own my OS or not? Any comments on similar experiences in dealing with other bulk dealers, and OS/license requirements?" Strikes me as if I buy a machien from Dell with a "No OS" license, then I should be able to put whatever I want on it. What if someone is developing an OS and they haven't written a license yet?
Well, then these companies aren't the ones to buy from if they won't give you what you want. :) (Sure it's an idea world I live in... but....)
But, what's really funny is knowing the history of Michael Dell who started selling "grey market" PC compatibles from his UT Austin dorm room. (I worked for an Austin-area computer retailer in the 1980's.) Anyone familiar with the Dell story would enjoy the irony of Dell's up-to-date policy.
When you're rich, it doesn't hurt to play by the rules. When you poor and play by the rules: that's character.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I can see how such a policy would cut piracy, and I'm sure Dell's vendors like that.. I assume you are wishing to install Linux on the machine, but if you could prove that you had a license for say, MS Windows 95, would they back off on the charge and give you a blank HD??
.sig: Now legally binding!
Normally, I'd agree, but the 'general population' isn't ordering a machine without OS in the first place. It's either a corporate type, who (hopefully) should know what they are doing, a hobbyist (who should have to agree that Dell is making no claims that this hardware will work with his/her software, and will accept no returns based on that) or a l33+ haxor who is going to install a stolen copy of M$ whatever. So who gives a rat's ass about the copy of your license.
Personally, I think the original poster should have sent that one Apple 'open source' license. Or perhaps gotten the license from a copy of QNX:)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
(2) Does s/he have an interest in (commission, sales credits, whatever) your choice?
(3) Where does any seller's rights to dictate pre- and post-conditions of use end? Really!!
What next?
"If you order our computer with an over-20GB disk, you must must first send us a copy of your ISP agreement, and promise in writing not to use the disk in any activity not specifically permitted."
"The BIOS, MBR and associated boot sequence files are customized for your enhanced consumer experience, and are present under the terms of a contract we have with 800lb-OL, and you must agree not to change them in any way, nor interfere with their communication of experience enhancement data when connected to the internet."
Um, I think it's time to review the agreement/contract condition-setting process itself. It's getting out of hand. Remember when the 'phone company could dictate exactly what you could have inside your house, attached to their wires? Now you can do as you please, so long as you match the interface specs (though watch of a replay in terms of network use ;-/ ).
There are some conditions which have no business in any agreement, being essentially meddlesome and/or irrelevant to the central sales transaction. Unlike riders on bills in Congress, these are not part of a checks-and-balances process. These agreement riders are pure abuse.
I'm fed up to here with it. Every "agreement" for anything nowadays is packed with everything the lawyers can think of to waive your rights and expand theirs. It's really abusive. And the low end sales droids can't accept a marked-up agreement, so it's all or nothing. There ought to be a law that forces subsidiary "agreement" terms to have opt-out check boxes, so e.g., you don't have to agree to let a company share all the data on the form (and whatever you gave them permission to check on) with whomever they please, just to get a cell 'phone or buy a big HDTV on credit.
Also, if they don't have a right to control something after a sale, they should not be allowed to make it a condition of sale either.
Look into the idea of Right to Travel:
h tml
7 /vehiclecertorig.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/441
The short answer is no, you don't even need a driver's license to drive on public roads, providing you are not a commercial driver. It is the Constitutionally protected "right-to-travel". Most people are unaware of such a thing - most judges are unaware of such a thing. I believe every case that has been brought before a court on these grounds has ended up being thrown out (yeah, you will get arrested or ticketed for driving without a license. But show up in court, and argue against it and, provided you have all the paperwork (the MSO is the big one - you have to buy your car outright in cash to even hope to get it, and even then it is a bitch to obtain), and no liens against your car (this won't happen if you paid cash, but if you had to get a loan, which most people have to, kiss that MSO goodbye - the MSO, along with the purchasing invoice and the title, form a complete bill-of-sale, proving you own the vehicle. Most of the time, the MSO gets "split" between the lien holder and the state for licensing, and thus, technically, you don't own your vehicle - the state does), and it will be thrown out, due to Constitutional protection.
Look into it - look at the various cases, read the Constitution and what it says regarding travel, and you will soon realize how we have let ourselves get screwed...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It's not their place to "require a license" that they are not party to. That's not "playing ethically," that's being a meddling busybody.
Don't let the desirability of ends (e.g., preventing piracy) make you think any means promoting the ends are therefore ok and ethical. This fallacy of thought is all too common in Congress, and resulting laws show it.
As it happens, I have licenses up the kazoo, with a Universal MSDN subscription (now lapsed, so I don't have w2k stuff), Red Hat deluxe direct from them, BSD power pak, an old OS/2 Warp, old MSDOS's, and Windows from 3.1, many kilobucks' worth over time, all paid for, and I have the receipts. Beside all those options, I may want to get a NIC with a boot prom and boot a custom file server right onto the metal, and use the disk in raw LBA mode for a great big hashed database hashing direct to bucket sector numbers, or any other thing that's none of their business.
It is not the business of a box seller to check on my honesty, (dammit) (except, to a point, re credit, if they are extending that).
I could see doing some checks if I were buying arms, chemicals, or explosives, but a dumb computer?? It's the arrogance and stupidity of thinking it's ok treat everyone as suspect that gets me. No, worse, it's that they even think they have a right to ask for evidence of honest motives. Just asking is soft-core character assassination.
Of course, if they have to forego revenue when they give you a blank disk, then it's understandable that they wouldn't want to. But leave crime prevention out of it when you are talking to potential customers, because it's insulting. And people sense it, even if they can't articulate why.
The message to the sales folks is, "Insulting your customers is bad for sales." B-A-D F-O-R S-A-L-E-S is B-A-D F-O-R Y-O-U-R I-N-C-O-M-E, and that is all you care about, ethics has nothing to do with it. Got the taste of your medicine yet? Go back to beginning of this paragraph.
Hi, This is my first post, but here goes.
I work for a major system manufacturer... "syst*max" and we were recently notified of the "empire"'s new license agreement requirements for major OEM's. They are as follows (what I know of them for my job- senior tech support)
#1. Systems cannot ship with original Windoze media. We are permitted to ship a recovery disc, provided the disc will only work with that system, and we must pay ADDITIONAL fees to Micr*soft for each of said disc.
#2. Our agreement will allow us to ONLY sell Micr*soft OS on our systems, and those customers or companies wanting a pc or bunch of pcs without an OS, must show proof of ownership of licenses for a Micr*soft OS, otherwise we are not allowed to sell said systems. In fact, managment has warned us all that any employees who violate this policy (processing a system without a MS OS) will be terminated! The only exception is MS will allow us to sell a server without an OS if the customer shows proof of ownership of a NOVELL server product.
There you have it folks. The evil empire hasnt learned it's lesson. Hope I have been of some help.
Its probably a desktop PC-only policy which isn't enforced on servers, since Joe/Jane Average isn't going to be buying a PowerEdge sans OS license and then proceed to call up Dell Technical support asking why [insert OS here] doesn't install correctly. If you're buying a server, Dell assumes that you know what you're doing. (whether that's actually the case.... )
On the other hand, it could just be a particularly rigid sales rep who doesn't understand why you wouldn't want Windows 98SE and thinks you're just trying to make his/her life more difficult. I've jumped through this hoop trying to get Windows NT 4 pre-installed from a certain vendor, so asking for Linux and getting the run-around isn't suprising.
--srj/mmv